Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 14, 2017, 09:19PMWell, scientists, engineers, and mathematicians recognize that there is a limit on what man can do with math, and they use 'infinity' to plug into their math models. Now here is an example of a person talking out of their rear end. Mr. Dickerson, just because you have not been able to develop a concept of infinity does not mean everyone is so afflicted. "math' is not inherently limited. If you knew anything substantial about it you would know that.
QuoteWe realize that there is no limit as to how big or small a number can be, likewise, it is obvious there is no limit on how big God is and how small our comprehension of God is. We just have to use the infinity symbol as a place holder and move on. We can prove (with 'math' - there's that consistency thing) that infinity exists. We can't prove God exists at all. In fact the proof involves limits.
QuoteYou might say that the infinity symbol is our mathematical God symbol.The infinity symbol is not a place holder. There is a mathematically consistent use of infinity, and a definition within the realm of calculus. It is significant, but I'd have to say it is less significant than you believe your God to be. Infinity does not judge, and is not emotional.
God
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 07:27PM
Now you're just preaching, and never mind what I really think or what I've actually posted.
What you've posted is to try to group a number of things you don't think are valid and clump them together... then if one is taken down, it could be seen to negatively impact the others in a guilt by association type of way.
The only one here really putting "supernatural" or "magical" out there is you.
Kinda like that whole... "we need to clarify the definition of religion" stuff... What ever was your problem between what was being discussed and what religion meant? Oh yeah, you couldn't find one.
But then... You've been preaching for how many decades now? What is the intellectual integrity angle in telling the same people the same things with little to no result over and over again?
Now you're just preaching, and never mind what I really think or what I've actually posted.
What you've posted is to try to group a number of things you don't think are valid and clump them together... then if one is taken down, it could be seen to negatively impact the others in a guilt by association type of way.
The only one here really putting "supernatural" or "magical" out there is you.
Kinda like that whole... "we need to clarify the definition of religion" stuff... What ever was your problem between what was being discussed and what religion meant? Oh yeah, you couldn't find one.
But then... You've been preaching for how many decades now? What is the intellectual integrity angle in telling the same people the same things with little to no result over and over again?
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 14, 2017, 09:44PM Infinity does not judge, and is not emotional.
So, understanding this post, it explains why you're not offended by infinity. LOL!
So, understanding this post, it explains why you're not offended by infinity. LOL!
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 15, 2017, 07:21AMSo, understanding this post, it explains why you're not offended by infinity. LOL!
Why on earth would I be offended by infinity? Are you?
Why on earth would I be offended by infinity? Are you?
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
I thought I'd take a quick look into the origins and importance of the concept of the "supernatural" in religion in general and Christianity in particular, to make sure the idea that there's a fairly significant connection (to understate the matter just a tad) isn't just me. I haven't read through most of these yet, but here are some of the links The Google's kindly provided (from the first three pages of hits) to assist in this endeavor. Believe it or not it appears the supernatural is actually kinda important in the Bible. Who knew!? The real question here is whether some apologists are really interested at all in reality, or if they're far more interested in whatever line of thinking best serves (what they think are) their current interests. Check it out ...
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/christianity-supernatural-faith/
http://drmsh.com/why-are-christians-uncomfortable-with-the-supernatural/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-79/supernatural-faith.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-47/natural-supernatural.html
http://www.christianity.com/christian-life/spiritual-growth/a-supernatural-faith-11568845.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/what-does-supernatural-mean-can-a-person-be-christian-and-not-believe-in-it/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/why-are-supernatural-beliefs-so-important-to-religion-8450302.html
https://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528051/Were-born-with-a-belief-in-the-supernatural-says-scientist.html
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/christianity-supernatural-faith/
http://drmsh.com/why-are-christians-uncomfortable-with-the-supernatural/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-79/supernatural-faith.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-47/natural-supernatural.html
http://www.christianity.com/christian-life/spiritual-growth/a-supernatural-faith-11568845.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/what-does-supernatural-mean-can-a-person-be-christian-and-not-believe-in-it/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/why-are-supernatural-beliefs-so-important-to-religion-8450302.html
https://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528051/Were-born-with-a-belief-in-the-supernatural-says-scientist.html
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 05:49AMI thought I'd take a quick look into the origins and importance of the concept of the "supernatural" in religion in general and Christianity in particular, to make sure the idea that there's fairly significant connection (to understate the matter just a tad) isn't just me. Hint: If no one else really brings up "supernatural" or really what it means other than to answer a question with a quick definition...
Then it's just you.
At least in this context.
If you want to go bigger to google... try having a discussion with google.
Otherwise, you're trying to have one context (here) address whatever other context you want to create via google. That's somewhere between a strawman and a red herring depending on how you address it.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 05:49AMBelieve it or not it appears the supernatural is actually kinda important in the Bible. Who knew!?Believe it or not it appears this topic is about God/god/gods and not the bible. Who knew?! Oh yeah... anyone who looked at the subject of the posts. That person knew.
Then it's just you.
At least in this context.
If you want to go bigger to google... try having a discussion with google.
Otherwise, you're trying to have one context (here) address whatever other context you want to create via google. That's somewhere between a strawman and a red herring depending on how you address it.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 05:49AMBelieve it or not it appears the supernatural is actually kinda important in the Bible. Who knew!?Believe it or not it appears this topic is about God/god/gods and not the bible. Who knew?! Oh yeah... anyone who looked at the subject of the posts. That person knew.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Well, God is the supernatural aspect of the Bible and religion. If you take being supernatural away from God, God ceases to be. Without God, you don't have religion as it is understood in the context of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. So, any topic about God must include some discussion about the supernatural.
To be clear, I'm using the term 'supernatural' here to represent what is permanently above and out of reach of our understanding, rather than merely beyond our current understanding.
Maybe, to avoid confusion, I should use the term 'ultranatural' or 'preternatual' to refer to the things that science sometimes seeks to gain an understanding of and leave 'supernatural' for the gods. In reality though, they are just natural things we don't yet understand.
To be clear, I'm using the term 'supernatural' here to represent what is permanently above and out of reach of our understanding, rather than merely beyond our current understanding.
Maybe, to avoid confusion, I should use the term 'ultranatural' or 'preternatual' to refer to the things that science sometimes seeks to gain an understanding of and leave 'supernatural' for the gods. In reality though, they are just natural things we don't yet understand.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 08:14AMhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm
Reads like some serious over-writing combined with some wrong assumptions.
At least there is no pigeon hole for me there. My concept of the 'natural order' includes consciousness, and hence free will. I see no need of a God whatsoever. So it appears I'm not quite in either of the two ways of thinking he starts out with.
I guess the author was really only thinking of religious people. In that case, and in that context, his assumptions could very well be right.
Reads like some serious over-writing combined with some wrong assumptions.
At least there is no pigeon hole for me there. My concept of the 'natural order' includes consciousness, and hence free will. I see no need of a God whatsoever. So it appears I'm not quite in either of the two ways of thinking he starts out with.
I guess the author was really only thinking of religious people. In that case, and in that context, his assumptions could very well be right.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 09:05AMReads like some serious over-writing combined with some wrong assumptions.
At least there is no pigeon hole for me there. My concept of the 'natural order' includes consciousness, and hence free will. I see no need of a God whatsoever. So it appears I'm not quite in either of the two ways of thinking he starts out with.
I guess the author was really only thinking of religious people. In that case, and in that context, his assumptions could very well be right.
Exactly. I don't think anyone can understand God without faith.
You have faith in the pilot of an airplane you fly in. Right? But you do know that bad things can happen even though it's unlikely. So you're putting your trust in someone else's hands based on your limited/broad knowledge of flight, the aircraft maintenance schedule, weather, the pilot, his/her training, and so on. So you have faith based on what you know and even if you don't know you have faith that someone knows what's going on. You have faith in the extensive knowledge of the pilot and the manufacturer and air traffic control, etc. I have faith in the Bible and the extensive knowledge of the Church. And I am ok with not knowing what I don't know. I can't know everything. And being a believer has never negatively affected my life. But maybe it has and I just don't know. You may have similar experiences with not being a believer.
At least there is no pigeon hole for me there. My concept of the 'natural order' includes consciousness, and hence free will. I see no need of a God whatsoever. So it appears I'm not quite in either of the two ways of thinking he starts out with.
I guess the author was really only thinking of religious people. In that case, and in that context, his assumptions could very well be right.
Exactly. I don't think anyone can understand God without faith.
You have faith in the pilot of an airplane you fly in. Right? But you do know that bad things can happen even though it's unlikely. So you're putting your trust in someone else's hands based on your limited/broad knowledge of flight, the aircraft maintenance schedule, weather, the pilot, his/her training, and so on. So you have faith based on what you know and even if you don't know you have faith that someone knows what's going on. You have faith in the extensive knowledge of the pilot and the manufacturer and air traffic control, etc. I have faith in the Bible and the extensive knowledge of the Church. And I am ok with not knowing what I don't know. I can't know everything. And being a believer has never negatively affected my life. But maybe it has and I just don't know. You may have similar experiences with not being a believer.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 06:50AMTo be clear, I'm using the term 'supernatural' here to represent what is permanently above and out of reach of our understanding, rather than merely beyond our current understanding.Which is essentially where it starts and stops. God is more than we can know. That's pretty much it, as far as a "supernatural" discussion goes.
The real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
The real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMWhich is essentially where it starts and stops. God is more than we can know. That's pretty much it, as far as a "supernatural" discussion goes.
The real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
Yup.
The real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
Yup.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps you'd like a different definition of nature/natural than is sufficient for me, but certainly my definition of nature not something we know or understand fully.
I see it two ways. The whole of nature is everything within the universe - most of which is certainly beyond our current understanding. However, since we are of the universe, I see nature as something we are able to approach and at least try to understand fully. We may never get there, but we know a heck of a lot more than we did a millennium ago.
Then there is what we understand of nature - cognito naturae. What we know of the universe when we look at it. Nature as we see it. I propose to call that gap between our cognito naturae and the whole of nature the ultranatural, or probably more correctly ultranaturam.
So, when I refer to 'supernatural', it will be to what you understand a supernatural and I'll refer to what us science geeks chip away at as ultranaturam.
I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps you'd like a different definition of nature/natural than is sufficient for me, but certainly my definition of nature not something we know or understand fully.
I see it two ways. The whole of nature is everything within the universe - most of which is certainly beyond our current understanding. However, since we are of the universe, I see nature as something we are able to approach and at least try to understand fully. We may never get there, but we know a heck of a lot more than we did a millennium ago.
Then there is what we understand of nature - cognito naturae. What we know of the universe when we look at it. Nature as we see it. I propose to call that gap between our cognito naturae and the whole of nature the ultranatural, or probably more correctly ultranaturam.
So, when I refer to 'supernatural', it will be to what you understand a supernatural and I'll refer to what us science geeks chip away at as ultranaturam.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMYou have faith in the pilot of an airplane you fly in. Right?
I trust the pilot and the system, but I would not go as far a faith.
I trust the pilot and the system, but I would not go as far a faith.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 10:54AMI'm not sure I understand. Perhaps you'd like a different definition of nature/natural than is sufficient for me, but certainly my definition of nature not something we know or understand fully.Is there a goal in the semantics?
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 10:58AMI trust the pilot and the system, but I would not go as far a faith.
That's just semantics.
faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something
That's just semantics.
faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 12:31PMfaith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something
Right, and I said I won't go as far as complete trust ... or ergo, faith. Why do you have an issue with this?
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 12:16PMIs there a goal in the semantics?
Boyos, you were the ones that started talking about definitions:
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
To which ronkny replied.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:16AMYup.
I was just letting you know I don't define 'natural' as something we know or understand. What's your issue with that?
I went on to classify nature into three sections and identify them: all of nature, that part of nature which we know and that part which we don't. The goal being that we have a common nomenclature to describe what we talk about. Is there another goal to semantics?
I don't necessarily disagree that:
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
I just don't see it happening here.
Right, and I said I won't go as far as complete trust ... or ergo, faith. Why do you have an issue with this?
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 12:16PMIs there a goal in the semantics?
Boyos, you were the ones that started talking about definitions:
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
To which ronkny replied.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:16AMYup.
I was just letting you know I don't define 'natural' as something we know or understand. What's your issue with that?
I went on to classify nature into three sections and identify them: all of nature, that part of nature which we know and that part which we don't. The goal being that we have a common nomenclature to describe what we talk about. Is there another goal to semantics?
I don't necessarily disagree that:
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.
I just don't see it happening here.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMExactly. I don't think anyone can understand God without faith.Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMWhich is essentially where it starts and stops. God is more than we can know. That's pretty much it, as far as a "supernatural" discussion goes.Well, it certainly appears we have a conflict of ideology here. In science we can do experiments and such and prove one wrong. How are such issues historically resolved for religion?
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMYou have faith in the pilot of an airplane you fly in. Right? But you do know that bad things can happen even though it's unlikely. So you're putting your trust in someone else's hands based on your limited/broad knowledge of flight, the aircraft maintenance schedule, weather, the pilot, his/her training, and so on. So you have faith based on what you know and even if you don't know you have faith that someone knows what's going on. You have faith in the extensive knowledge of the pilot and the manufacturer and air traffic control, etc.Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMI have faith in the Bible and the extensive knowledge of the Church. And I am ok with not knowing what I don't know. I can't know everything. And being a believer has never negatively affected my life. But maybe it has and I just don't know. You may have similar experiences with not being a believer.And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMYou have faith in the pilot of an airplane you fly in. Right? But you do know that bad things can happen even though it's unlikely. So you're putting your trust in someone else's hands based on your limited/broad knowledge of flight, the aircraft maintenance schedule, weather, the pilot, his/her training, and so on. So you have faith based on what you know and even if you don't know you have faith that someone knows what's going on. You have faith in the extensive knowledge of the pilot and the manufacturer and air traffic control, etc.Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:02AMI have faith in the Bible and the extensive knowledge of the Church. And I am ok with not knowing what I don't know. I can't know everything. And being a believer has never negatively affected my life. But maybe it has and I just don't know. You may have similar experiences with not being a believer.And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 10:08AMThe real arrogance comes in defining "natural" as something we know or understand.Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMHint: If no one else really brings up "supernatural" or really what it means other than to answer a question with a quick definition...
Then it's just you.
At least in this context.So your objection to criticism of the concept of the "supernatural" in a religious topic is that the religious believers aren't the ones who brought it up or who are talking about it.
That's pretty amazingly myopic and convenient. You want my criticism to be my own personal issue--a fake issue--because believers here and now didn't bring it up. Sounds like you're taking cues from The Donald, and what you're coming up with is just as compelling.
There are some extremely obvious illustrations that would be useful, but I expect the irrelevant sociopolitical associations would be used to excuse the exposed nonsense in this case, very much like those who think simply applying the label "Godwin's Law" conveniently addresses any and all references to Hitler or Nazi Germany, effectively disallowing them according to this standard precisely as you're trying to do here with the concept of the supernatural.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMIf you want to go bigger to google... try having a discussion with google.Well, at least Google won't weep and wail and gnash its teeth and evade like a Trump if I mention an inconvenient topic that it clearly doesn't want to accept.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMOtherwise, you're trying to have one context (here) address whatever other context you want to create via google. That's somewhere between a strawman and a red herring depending on how you address it.Making a point an apologist doesn't want to deal with isn't a red herring or a straw man. It may expose intellectual cowardice, but raising the issue of the alleged supernatural in a discussion about religion and/or God is patently not diverting from valid issues of religion (red herring) or misrepresenting religion in order to easily discredit it (straw man), as anyone remotely rational who is actually even slightly familiar with the concept of religion and religious beliefs is quite aware. Inconvenient at the moment is not what red herrings or straw men are made of. Throwing a tantrum over the introduction of an inconvenient issue is, however, a strong indication of intellectual cowardice.
One of those links above would probably be a good one for you to consider: http://drmsh.com/why-are-christians-uncomfortable-with-the-supernatural/
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMBelieve it or not it appears this topic is about God/god/gods and not the bible. Who knew?! Oh yeah... anyone who looked at the subject of the posts. That person knew.To help with this problematic selective memory issue:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202724.html#msg1202724
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202839.html#msg1202839
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202902.html#msg1202902
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202910.html#msg1202910
Then it's just you.
At least in this context.So your objection to criticism of the concept of the "supernatural" in a religious topic is that the religious believers aren't the ones who brought it up or who are talking about it.
That's pretty amazingly myopic and convenient. You want my criticism to be my own personal issue--a fake issue--because believers here and now didn't bring it up. Sounds like you're taking cues from The Donald, and what you're coming up with is just as compelling.
There are some extremely obvious illustrations that would be useful, but I expect the irrelevant sociopolitical associations would be used to excuse the exposed nonsense in this case, very much like those who think simply applying the label "Godwin's Law" conveniently addresses any and all references to Hitler or Nazi Germany, effectively disallowing them according to this standard precisely as you're trying to do here with the concept of the supernatural.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMIf you want to go bigger to google... try having a discussion with google.Well, at least Google won't weep and wail and gnash its teeth and evade like a Trump if I mention an inconvenient topic that it clearly doesn't want to accept.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMOtherwise, you're trying to have one context (here) address whatever other context you want to create via google. That's somewhere between a strawman and a red herring depending on how you address it.Making a point an apologist doesn't want to deal with isn't a red herring or a straw man. It may expose intellectual cowardice, but raising the issue of the alleged supernatural in a discussion about religion and/or God is patently not diverting from valid issues of religion (red herring) or misrepresenting religion in order to easily discredit it (straw man), as anyone remotely rational who is actually even slightly familiar with the concept of religion and religious beliefs is quite aware. Inconvenient at the moment is not what red herrings or straw men are made of. Throwing a tantrum over the introduction of an inconvenient issue is, however, a strong indication of intellectual cowardice.
One of those links above would probably be a good one for you to consider: http://drmsh.com/why-are-christians-uncomfortable-with-the-supernatural/
Quote from: B0B on Jul 18, 2017, 06:06AMBelieve it or not it appears this topic is about God/god/gods and not the bible. Who knew?! Oh yeah... anyone who looked at the subject of the posts. That person knew.To help with this problematic selective memory issue:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202724.html#msg1202724
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202839.html#msg1202839
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202902.html#msg1202902
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,100770.msg1202910.html#msg1202910
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:08PMWell, it certainly appears we have a conflict of ideology here. In science we can do experiments and such and prove one wrong. How are such issues historically resolved for religion?
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
In science, yes you do experiments. Yet you still don't know what you don't know.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
In science, yes you do experiments. Yet you still don't know what you don't know.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:08PMWell, it certainly appears we have a conflict of ideology here. In science we can do experiments and such and prove one wrong. How are such issues historically resolved for religion?
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
Whoosh! You missed that by a mile.
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers.
Fine so far, except that you're equivocating with the term faith. First, the pilot and the plane and aerodynamics are all observable and thoroughly evidenced. It's not so much faith in the pilot as it is an acceptance of the probabilities. The difference here is really pretty huge. We know that technologies and humans fail. We know that if a serious enough malfunction happens in plane the pilot will be powerless to keep us in the air and alive. We also know that if the pilot fails seriously enough (actually both or all three) the plane won't be able to recover and land and again we're pretty much screwed. So we do have to accept these potentials (or ignore them--practice a kind of denial), but it's about probabilities, not faith--or at least not faith in the same sense as people who have faith in God and that he exists and all that--not the same as religious faith, unless you'd argue that you "faith" in God is about the low (non-zero) probability of God's failure (i.e. God can fail, but the odds are low enough to risk trusting him).
The argument is more sophisticated and detailed for sure, but ultimately it's the same exact argument as claiming faith in God is the same as having faith that when you flip the switch the light bulb will shine, which completely ignores the issue of failure. If a light bulb fails we get another one and switch them out. So how close is that to what believers experience if God fails (or if the concept of God fails to survive scrutiny)?
And the church equivalents to aerodynamics and pilot training and the stats that give us the odds of plane crashes are ... ? None of those things are represented by the things you just cited as examples of secular faith. There are no equivalents between them.
Or arguably would be, if anyone were doing that anyway. It's a valid argument against those who do, but as far as I know I've never met such a person. But no, the real arrogance would be in presuming to know something you can't support with evidence and judging others harshly for disagreeing (or maybe just openly so).
Whoosh! You missed that by a mile.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 12:31PMThat's just semantics.
faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something
Not according to the Bible. Faith is belief without evidence.
faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something
Not according to the Bible. Faith is belief without evidence.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
So what's the star for, Ronkny?
I haven't seen that before--or at least I hadn't noticed it until now.
I haven't seen that before--or at least I hadn't noticed it until now.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 05:48PMIn science, yes you do experiments. Yet you still don't know what you don't know.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.That's why I don't pretend to know things I can't know.
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 05:50PMWhoosh! You missed that by a mile.I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.That's why I don't pretend to know things I can't know.
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 05:50PMWhoosh! You missed that by a mile.I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 05:48PMIn science, yes you do experiments. Yet you still don't know what you don't know.Scientists are all about that. We are fine with our ignorance and we strive everyday to see past it. In most cases, it is not important even when we know that we don't know something. It is usually enough if we know how to predict it.
QuoteAlso, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.There are those that would argue on this matter. We 'knew' it for hundreds of years as a 'force' between masses. We did not know what mass was, we did not know what the force was, but we could measure the mass and predict the force between them. It served all that time, and still does for 99.999% of our needs.
Then Einstein came along with his general relativity. That showed us that we don't actually need a force at all. It shows us that space is curved or bent around mass. We've known since Newton that objects will naturally follow 'straight' lines in flat space. We later found out these lines were not 'straight', they were what are called geodesic lines. It just so happens that geodesic lines are curved in curved space, so objects follow curved lines in the curved space around mass. In fact, the only time we need to exert a force is when we try to stop an object from following a geodesic line. We still did not yet know where the mass, this thing that bends space, came from.
So roll the calendar on to 1962 when a guy named Philip Anderson first proposed a mechanism wherein gauge bosons take on mass. I'm not even going to attempt a layman's explanation of this as I'd have to explain the full particle model of matter and quantum fields to you, and then some. In any case suffice it to say that several groups at around that same time took this proposal and built a working theory around it. Yes, one of the leaders of one of the groups was called Peter Higgs. The theor, now called Higgs Mechanism, would explain mass without breaking existing gauge theory if only they could find a particle the theory predicted. A particle they named the Higgs Boson.
Roll the clock forward to 2013 and a team working at the large hadron collider at Cern did indeed find a particle that exactly matched the one predicted by the Higgs Mechanism.
So yeah, we've got a pretty good handle on gravity.
QuoteYou can't know everything.
Correction - we don't know everything.
QuoteAlso, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.There are those that would argue on this matter. We 'knew' it for hundreds of years as a 'force' between masses. We did not know what mass was, we did not know what the force was, but we could measure the mass and predict the force between them. It served all that time, and still does for 99.999% of our needs.
Then Einstein came along with his general relativity. That showed us that we don't actually need a force at all. It shows us that space is curved or bent around mass. We've known since Newton that objects will naturally follow 'straight' lines in flat space. We later found out these lines were not 'straight', they were what are called geodesic lines. It just so happens that geodesic lines are curved in curved space, so objects follow curved lines in the curved space around mass. In fact, the only time we need to exert a force is when we try to stop an object from following a geodesic line. We still did not yet know where the mass, this thing that bends space, came from.
So roll the calendar on to 1962 when a guy named Philip Anderson first proposed a mechanism wherein gauge bosons take on mass. I'm not even going to attempt a layman's explanation of this as I'd have to explain the full particle model of matter and quantum fields to you, and then some. In any case suffice it to say that several groups at around that same time took this proposal and built a working theory around it. Yes, one of the leaders of one of the groups was called Peter Higgs. The theor, now called Higgs Mechanism, would explain mass without breaking existing gauge theory if only they could find a particle the theory predicted. A particle they named the Higgs Boson.
Roll the clock forward to 2013 and a team working at the large hadron collider at Cern did indeed find a particle that exactly matched the one predicted by the Higgs Mechanism.
So yeah, we've got a pretty good handle on gravity.
QuoteYou can't know everything.
Correction - we don't know everything.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 18, 2017, 06:29PMNot according to the Bible. Faith is belief without evidence.
Sorry Tim. No. That's no where in the Bible.
Sorry Tim. No. That's no where in the Bible.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 08:44PMScientists are all about that. We are fine with our ignorance and we strive everyday to see past it. In most cases, it is not important even when we know that we don't know something. It is usually enough if we know how to predict it.
There are those that would argue on this matter. We 'knew' it for hundreds of years as a 'force' between masses. We did not know what mass was, we did not know what the force was, but we could measure the mass and predict the force between them. It served all that time, and still does for 99.999% of our needs.
Then Einstein came along with his general relativity. That showed us that we don't actually need a force at all. It shows us that space is curved or bent around mass. We've known since Newton that objects will naturally follow 'straight' lines in flat space. We later found out these lines were not 'straight', they were what are called geodesic lines. It just so happens that geodesic lines are curved in curved space, so objects follow curved lines in the curved space around mass. In fact, the only time we need to exert a force is when we try to stop an object from following a geodesic line. We still did not yet know where the mass, this thing that bends space, came from.
So roll the calendar on to 1962 when a guy named Philip Anderson first proposed a mechanism wherein gauge bosons take on mass. I'm not even going to attempt a layman's explanation of this as I'd have to explain the full particle model of matter and quantum fields to you, and then some. In any case suffice it to say that several groups at around that same time took this proposal and built a working theory around it. Yes, one of the leaders of one of the groups was called Peter Higgs. The theor, now called Higgs Mechanism, would explain mass without breaking existing gauge theory if only they could find a particle the theory predicted. A particle they named the Higgs Boson.
Roll the clock forward to 2013 and a team working at the large hadron collider at Cern did indeed find a particle that exactly matched the one predicted by the Higgs Mechanism.
So yeah, we've got a pretty good handle on gravity.
Correction - we don't know everything.
i disagree. And I meant what I said, "You can't know everything".
There are those that would argue on this matter. We 'knew' it for hundreds of years as a 'force' between masses. We did not know what mass was, we did not know what the force was, but we could measure the mass and predict the force between them. It served all that time, and still does for 99.999% of our needs.
Then Einstein came along with his general relativity. That showed us that we don't actually need a force at all. It shows us that space is curved or bent around mass. We've known since Newton that objects will naturally follow 'straight' lines in flat space. We later found out these lines were not 'straight', they were what are called geodesic lines. It just so happens that geodesic lines are curved in curved space, so objects follow curved lines in the curved space around mass. In fact, the only time we need to exert a force is when we try to stop an object from following a geodesic line. We still did not yet know where the mass, this thing that bends space, came from.
So roll the calendar on to 1962 when a guy named Philip Anderson first proposed a mechanism wherein gauge bosons take on mass. I'm not even going to attempt a layman's explanation of this as I'd have to explain the full particle model of matter and quantum fields to you, and then some. In any case suffice it to say that several groups at around that same time took this proposal and built a working theory around it. Yes, one of the leaders of one of the groups was called Peter Higgs. The theor, now called Higgs Mechanism, would explain mass without breaking existing gauge theory if only they could find a particle the theory predicted. A particle they named the Higgs Boson.
Roll the clock forward to 2013 and a team working at the large hadron collider at Cern did indeed find a particle that exactly matched the one predicted by the Higgs Mechanism.
So yeah, we've got a pretty good handle on gravity.
Correction - we don't know everything.
i disagree. And I meant what I said, "You can't know everything".
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 06:47PMThat's why I don't pretend to know things I can't know.
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped.
"Most believers presume to know what they can't". Umm no. I certainly don't. And just because you can't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped.
"Most believers presume to know what they can't". Umm no. I certainly don't. And just because you can't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 06:42PMSo what's the star for, Ronkny?
I haven't seen that before--or at least I hadn't noticed it until now.
Brigadier General or Rear Admiral (lower half).
I haven't seen that before--or at least I hadn't noticed it until now.
Brigadier General or Rear Admiral (lower half).
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 18, 2017, 08:44PMI'm not even going to attempt a layman's explanation of this as I'd have to explain the full particle model of matter and quantum fields to you, and then some.
If you change your mind, I would love to hear a layman's explanation of "the full particle model of matter and quantum fields". (I'm using "explain" in the sense of to make understandable)
One thing I've always been curious of: (I understand the analogy of how mass warps space: I'm thinking of gravity well's) I can't visualise how if you throw an object up in the air it goes up and then straight back down. Is it like a curved line that goes out and then back again? Normally the pictures I've seen that depict the curvature of space are of lines that are flat and then curve down to the mass.
If you change your mind, I would love to hear a layman's explanation of "the full particle model of matter and quantum fields". (I'm using "explain" in the sense of to make understandable)
One thing I've always been curious of: (I understand the analogy of how mass warps space: I'm thinking of gravity well's) I can't visualise how if you throw an object up in the air it goes up and then straight back down. Is it like a curved line that goes out and then back again? Normally the pictures I've seen that depict the curvature of space are of lines that are flat and then curve down to the mass.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
I changed my mind and decided it would be wiser to remain silent.
Pretty radical, I know.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 05:48PMIn science, yes you do experiments. Yet you still don't know what you don't know.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.
We often hear people argue "Science can't explain..." as if that indicates the real explanation is some action by God or other super natural mechanism.
If you go back 100 years ago there were numerous things science couldn't explain.
No one knew how the Sun worked 100 years ago. No theory could account for all the things that were known about the Sun. Science couldn't explain it! Maybe it was a miracle that man could never comprehend?
Over the next 30 years science ascertained more about physics and the Sun became an explainable phenomenon. But the Sun itself didn't change. It was always a big ball of fusion firing away whether we knew it or not.
It's true that we don't know everything but that doesn't mean things we don't know today can never be known. History is a long parade of things that seemed unknowable but became knowable later.
That's why I think "we don't understand..." is a weak argument for God.
Also, although we know gravity exists we still don't know what it is and where it comes from.
You can't know everything. Even you BVB.
We often hear people argue "Science can't explain..." as if that indicates the real explanation is some action by God or other super natural mechanism.
If you go back 100 years ago there were numerous things science couldn't explain.
No one knew how the Sun worked 100 years ago. No theory could account for all the things that were known about the Sun. Science couldn't explain it! Maybe it was a miracle that man could never comprehend?
Over the next 30 years science ascertained more about physics and the Sun became an explainable phenomenon. But the Sun itself didn't change. It was always a big ball of fusion firing away whether we knew it or not.
It's true that we don't know everything but that doesn't mean things we don't know today can never be known. History is a long parade of things that seemed unknowable but became knowable later.
That's why I think "we don't understand..." is a weak argument for God.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:21PMQuote from: timothy42b on Jul 18, 2017, 06:29PMNot according to the Bible. Faith is belief without evidence.Sorry Tim. No. That's no where in the Bible.
Timothy 11:1 is the usual citation for that one.
You can argue it's a mistranslation, but you can't really argue it's not there.
Timothy 11:1 is the usual citation for that one.
You can argue it's a mistranslation, but you can't really argue it's not there.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:32PMBrigadier General or Rear Admiral (lower half).
Of the Trombone Forum, eh?
Heh.
Fair enough then, sir.
Of the Trombone Forum, eh?
Heh.
Fair enough then, sir.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:29PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 06:47PMThat's why I don't pretend to know things I can't know.
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped."Most believers presume to know what they can't". Umm no. I certainly don't. And just because you can't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
It just means that believers who claim to know God exists are really presuming he does. And we don't know if something exists or not is invalid reason to believe it does for sure, much less when the subject of the belief question is a rather fantastical being for which there's no evidence and every reason to strongly suspect it's the product of sociology and psychology rather than anything that actually exists outside of the human mind.
I know you don't realize it, but you're making the main point I've been making in here for the duration.
I consistently argue that honesty demands we accept what we don't know--uncertainty. Most believers presume to know what they can't though, by definition (this is quite more than likely why Bob is desperately trying to pretend the supernatural isn't an important aspect of theism and religious belief). The very definition of "supernatural" (outside of nature, whatever that might mean) moves anything allegedly supernatural outside our ranges of perception, which are limited to the cosmos/nature. At best it can be claimed that people are perceiving something real, but since we can't verify that and we have obvious psychological and sociological explanations that are well established issues with human brain ownership and completely explain theism and religious belief, the notion of theism just isn't terribly compelling outside of those psychological and sociological contexts.
I gather the previous reply didn't quite feel satisfying.
Quite understandable, but I'm not sure how this second reply could have helped."Most believers presume to know what they can't". Umm no. I certainly don't. And just because you can't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
It just means that believers who claim to know God exists are really presuming he does. And we don't know if something exists or not is invalid reason to believe it does for sure, much less when the subject of the belief question is a rather fantastical being for which there's no evidence and every reason to strongly suspect it's the product of sociology and psychology rather than anything that actually exists outside of the human mind.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 18, 2017, 10:45PM
I changed my mind and decided it would be wiser to remain silent.
Pretty radical, I know.
Exercising the better part of valor is probably solid advice.
I'm ready to join you there at any moment ... heh.
I changed my mind and decided it would be wiser to remain silent.
Pretty radical, I know.
Exercising the better part of valor is probably solid advice.
I'm ready to join you there at any moment ... heh.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:08PMWell, it certainly appears we have a conflict of ideology here. In science we can do experiments and such and prove one wrong. How are such issues historically resolved for religion?
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers. It's like you're trying to narrate a silent film while sitting in a theater playing the latest transformers movie....
"Yup."
Anyway, Ronkny's comment amounts to saying, If you don't agree with me and mine on the matter you just don't understand. The "measure" of understanding is just agreement. Nothing more. Done. The metaphysics/philosophy/the structural foundation upon which the ideas are based just don't appear to be there at all.
Bob's comment expects critics to just ignore the whole existence issue--the presumption is that God exists, and from there the leap that we can't fully understand him isn't such a leap, although still entirely unsupported. Then Bob disagrees with the supernatural in Christian theology ... or technically just the supernatural in this conversation, which if that's a distinction he's making means it's different from Christian theology and we're just in some kind of rhetorical competition or something, rather than a discussion or anything that actually applies to real belief amongst real believers. It's like you're trying to narrate a silent film while sitting in a theater playing the latest transformers movie....
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:41PMSo your objection to criticism of the concept of the "supernatural" in a religious topic is that the religious believers aren't the ones who brought it up or who are talking about it. Nope. Try reading what I actually said, rather than what you want to see.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:41PMThat's pretty amazingly myopic and convenient.It is myopic and convenient for you to come away with that, yes. I agree.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 02:41PMThat's pretty amazingly myopic and convenient.It is myopic and convenient for you to come away with that, yes. I agree.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 18, 2017, 06:47PMThat's why I don't pretend to know things I can't know. But you do... You say you can't know God, but your entire premise in this thread (like every single religious thread... obsessive much?) is that He doesn't exist.
Somehow you seem to expect that someone must be able to prove their own belief to you, and you must accept what they see as evidence that God exists... and others need to prove to YOU that God exists, or He doesn't, and you need to press that view onto others.
Here's the thing Byron: In your own belief system... the I need proof, and scientific method, "Show your work"... You don't matter. Get over yourself.
Somehow you seem to expect that someone must be able to prove their own belief to you, and you must accept what they see as evidence that God exists... and others need to prove to YOU that God exists, or He doesn't, and you need to press that view onto others.
Here's the thing Byron: In your own belief system... the I need proof, and scientific method, "Show your work"... You don't matter. Get over yourself.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:22 AMBut you do... You say you can't know God, but your entire premise in this thread (like every single religious thread... obsessive much?) is that He doesn't exist.
See if you can find a quote from me that takes this alleged position of mine.
See if you can find a quote from me that takes this alleged position of mine.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:44 AM
See if you can find a quote from me that takes this alleged position of mine.
You mean like:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 04:12 AMIt just means that believers who claim to know God exists are really presuming he does. And we don't know if something exists or not is invalid reason to believe it does for sure, much less when the subject of the belief question is a rather fantastical being for which there's no evidence and every reason to strongly suspect it's the product of sociology and psychology rather than anything that actually exists outside of the human mind.
Lots of words and intentionally convoluted language but basically assuming things of others, and trying to say any belief in God is invalid. Ie: you have nothing you feel says God exists, therefor the position is that He doesn't and belief in Him is illogical and faulty. The practical impact of your rants is to say (over and over and over, apparantly) there is nothing to believe in, God doesn't exist.
Again, just because you don't like it or it doesn't mean much to you... that doesn't make something invalid or illogical. Per your own belief system, you don't matter. Maybe try being consistent to your own beliefs?
See if you can find a quote from me that takes this alleged position of mine.
You mean like:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 04:12 AMIt just means that believers who claim to know God exists are really presuming he does. And we don't know if something exists or not is invalid reason to believe it does for sure, much less when the subject of the belief question is a rather fantastical being for which there's no evidence and every reason to strongly suspect it's the product of sociology and psychology rather than anything that actually exists outside of the human mind.
Lots of words and intentionally convoluted language but basically assuming things of others, and trying to say any belief in God is invalid. Ie: you have nothing you feel says God exists, therefor the position is that He doesn't and belief in Him is illogical and faulty. The practical impact of your rants is to say (over and over and over, apparantly) there is nothing to believe in, God doesn't exist.
Again, just because you don't like it or it doesn't mean much to you... that doesn't make something invalid or illogical. Per your own belief system, you don't matter. Maybe try being consistent to your own beliefs?
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 18, 2017, 10:43PMIf you change your mind, I would love to hear a layman's explanation of "the full particle model of matter and quantum fields". (I'm using "explain" in the sense of to make understandable)
Martin, as far as I know there is none. If your interested just look up the WIKI articles on each and if you hit a stumbling block ask me specific questions and I'll try to answer. Particle physics is not my area. I will say this though, gauge boson theory is essential to our understanding of the other natural forces and it works and is a core component of the standard particle model. One of the tenets of science is that if a new theory breaks and old that worked, it can't be right. If the Higgs Mechanism theory broke that, it would have be useless. It didn't, it is consistent with the gauge bososn theory. They two work together to give us a better understanding of the 'forces' we observe.
Like in other areas of quantification, quantum fields are fields that have a discrete progression rather than continuous progression, and like all areas of quantum mechanics are a tool. The concept allows us to build a mathematical operator that defines the allowable energy states for a given system. We can then, with much gnashing of teeth, grunt though the calculations to determine the probability the system is any of the allowable states. While these ideas seem non-intuitive to most people it is a wonder why. We should be very familiar with the concepts of quantification. We are always try to put thing in terms of whole numbers. "How many potatoes do we need?", "Father, I have sinned 4 times since my last confession."
Anyway, these are not easy things to explain. If they were we'd all be physicists after graduating grade school. It took me 4 years of university to learn what I know, and believe me when I tell you, I just scratch the surface.
Martin, as far as I know there is none. If your interested just look up the WIKI articles on each and if you hit a stumbling block ask me specific questions and I'll try to answer. Particle physics is not my area. I will say this though, gauge boson theory is essential to our understanding of the other natural forces and it works and is a core component of the standard particle model. One of the tenets of science is that if a new theory breaks and old that worked, it can't be right. If the Higgs Mechanism theory broke that, it would have be useless. It didn't, it is consistent with the gauge bososn theory. They two work together to give us a better understanding of the 'forces' we observe.
Like in other areas of quantification, quantum fields are fields that have a discrete progression rather than continuous progression, and like all areas of quantum mechanics are a tool. The concept allows us to build a mathematical operator that defines the allowable energy states for a given system. We can then, with much gnashing of teeth, grunt though the calculations to determine the probability the system is any of the allowable states. While these ideas seem non-intuitive to most people it is a wonder why. We should be very familiar with the concepts of quantification. We are always try to put thing in terms of whole numbers. "How many potatoes do we need?", "Father, I have sinned 4 times since my last confession."
Anyway, these are not easy things to explain. If they were we'd all be physicists after graduating grade school. It took me 4 years of university to learn what I know, and believe me when I tell you, I just scratch the surface.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 18, 2017, 10:43PMOne thing I've always been curious of: (I understand the analogy of how mass warps space: I'm thinking of gravity well's) I can't visualise how if you throw an object up in the air it goes up and then straight back down. Is it like a curved line that goes out and then back again? Normally the pictures I've seen that depict the curvature of space are of lines that are flat and then curve down to the mass.
Unfortunately, pictures must be represented in two dimensions, but space exits in at least 4 we know of. I did some work on this during spare time in school. Projections are a poor way for representing higher dimensions. You necessarily loose information in the process. What I did was use intersections instead. For example, if you stick a pencil (a 3D object) thorough the surface of a sheet of paper ( a 2D object) at different orientations, think of what the possible intersections look like to the 2D creatures that hypothetically live on that sheet of paper. Not many of them look like a pencil. It gets even more interesting when you look at more complex objects or even higher dimensions.
Unlike paper, or a computer screen, space has a 4 dimensions and what we actually see of those 4 dimensions with our 2 dimensional vision in an intersection rather than a projection. Those funnel shaped drawings on a grid you see (which are a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D space) would be a very distorted depiction of a single and very specific orientation. If you are happy with these pictures, you'll have to be happy with the fact they are necessarily distorted. Look for examples that use polar coordinates rather than a Cartesian grid. Think of the 'rings' as geodesics for orbits, and the lines that bend down toward the massive object as those geodesics that an object falling 'straight' down would follow. Polar coordinates are a slightly better way to look at these projects, but are still horribly distorted.
Anyway, the conversations are going further off topic than just "side-bar" jaunts.
Unfortunately, pictures must be represented in two dimensions, but space exits in at least 4 we know of. I did some work on this during spare time in school. Projections are a poor way for representing higher dimensions. You necessarily loose information in the process. What I did was use intersections instead. For example, if you stick a pencil (a 3D object) thorough the surface of a sheet of paper ( a 2D object) at different orientations, think of what the possible intersections look like to the 2D creatures that hypothetically live on that sheet of paper. Not many of them look like a pencil. It gets even more interesting when you look at more complex objects or even higher dimensions.
Unlike paper, or a computer screen, space has a 4 dimensions and what we actually see of those 4 dimensions with our 2 dimensional vision in an intersection rather than a projection. Those funnel shaped drawings on a grid you see (which are a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D space) would be a very distorted depiction of a single and very specific orientation. If you are happy with these pictures, you'll have to be happy with the fact they are necessarily distorted. Look for examples that use polar coordinates rather than a Cartesian grid. Think of the 'rings' as geodesics for orbits, and the lines that bend down toward the massive object as those geodesics that an object falling 'straight' down would follow. Polar coordinates are a slightly better way to look at these projects, but are still horribly distorted.
Anyway, the conversations are going further off topic than just "side-bar" jaunts.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 18, 2017, 10:24PMi disagree.On what grounds? Is it like "I don't understand it, therefore it is just not" ?
QuoteAnd I meant what I said, "You can't know everything".
How do you know that?
QuoteAnd I meant what I said, "You can't know everything".
How do you know that?
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:31 AMAnyway, the conversations are going further off topic than just "side-bar" jaunts.
It is kinda amazing... People who believe in say a christian god can indeed talk about different aspects of other gods and religions, but are mostly hindered by ignorance. What is the local exposure to jainism? I've only known one person who held that belief, and I can't say much about it. But for what is familiar, well, jews and christians might worship the same god, but don't see it that way. Even christians split initially over the idea of the trinity. It was the first major rift. And similar for muslims...
And yet... some seem intent that any discussion of any god is an affront to their personal beliefs and that cannot be tolerated. They must therefor troll a thread and distract it with irrelevant attacks. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?! PROVE IT TO ME! ME! ME! ME! *sigh*
Did you ever figure out, BillO, what the purpose of an attempted composite god would be or how you were looking to discuss it?
It is kinda amazing... People who believe in say a christian god can indeed talk about different aspects of other gods and religions, but are mostly hindered by ignorance. What is the local exposure to jainism? I've only known one person who held that belief, and I can't say much about it. But for what is familiar, well, jews and christians might worship the same god, but don't see it that way. Even christians split initially over the idea of the trinity. It was the first major rift. And similar for muslims...
And yet... some seem intent that any discussion of any god is an affront to their personal beliefs and that cannot be tolerated. They must therefor troll a thread and distract it with irrelevant attacks. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?! PROVE IT TO ME! ME! ME! ME! *sigh*
Did you ever figure out, BillO, what the purpose of an attempted composite god would be or how you were looking to discuss it?
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:53 AM... and trying to say any belief in God is invalid.
Well, this must be true, because other people have different beliefs in God, and they are sure theirs is the right one and that yours is wrong. Hmm, how do we go about explaining that in a logical and consistent manner?
QuoteIe: you have nothing you feel says God exists, therefor the position is that He doesn't and belief in Him is illogical and faulty.
Too funny Bob. ronkny just turned a similar argument against me with respect to our understanding of gravity. He used a very terse form, he said "I disagree."
QuoteAgain, just because you don't like it or it doesn't mean much to you... that doesn't make something invalid or illogical.
ronkny, are you listening to Bob, your fellow in religious beliefs?
Well, this must be true, because other people have different beliefs in God, and they are sure theirs is the right one and that yours is wrong. Hmm, how do we go about explaining that in a logical and consistent manner?
QuoteIe: you have nothing you feel says God exists, therefor the position is that He doesn't and belief in Him is illogical and faulty.
Too funny Bob. ronkny just turned a similar argument against me with respect to our understanding of gravity. He used a very terse form, he said "I disagree."
QuoteAgain, just because you don't like it or it doesn't mean much to you... that doesn't make something invalid or illogical.
ronkny, are you listening to Bob, your fellow in religious beliefs?
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:41 AMHow do you know that?
You say you've only scraped the surface of physics. How about evolutionary biology? How good are you at creating a vaccine? Or coding in an application using an angular library, with a f# backend, talking to a nosql database? Or practicing law in ethopia? How many languages can you speak? There are currently 6909 living languages. Got them all? What about the historic ones?
More knowledge exists than a single person can learn, and at this point it isn't even really a question of it it's possible.
You say you've only scraped the surface of physics. How about evolutionary biology? How good are you at creating a vaccine? Or coding in an application using an angular library, with a f# backend, talking to a nosql database? Or practicing law in ethopia? How many languages can you speak? There are currently 6909 living languages. Got them all? What about the historic ones?
More knowledge exists than a single person can learn, and at this point it isn't even really a question of it it's possible.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:50 AMWell, this must be true, because other people have different beliefs in God, and they are sure theirs is the right one and that yours is wrong. Hmm, how do we go about explaining that in a logical and consistent manner?
Our brains operate in multiple ways at once... Logic is just one of the ways we process thought. One of the slowest, easiest to manipulate, and easiest to err, I might add. I cannot explain mood or emotion in logic, and yet... I may form or destroy lifelong bonds/decision based on them. I may sense that something is off, and it truly is, yet not be able to logically explain what or why.
So... I'm afraid before I could answer your question, I would have to ask another: Why would I attempt to limit myself to solely logical reasoning when I clearly use more than that, and logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations?
Our brains operate in multiple ways at once... Logic is just one of the ways we process thought. One of the slowest, easiest to manipulate, and easiest to err, I might add. I cannot explain mood or emotion in logic, and yet... I may form or destroy lifelong bonds/decision based on them. I may sense that something is off, and it truly is, yet not be able to logically explain what or why.
So... I'm afraid before I could answer your question, I would have to ask another: Why would I attempt to limit myself to solely logical reasoning when I clearly use more than that, and logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations?
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 06:49 AMDid you ever figure out, BillO, what the purpose of an attempted composite god would be or how you were looking to discuss it?
I always knew the purpose Bob, and I came to a conclusion as to that purpose a few dozen posts ago.
My purpose was to come up with a useful description of God for the sake of conversation. I wanted this to mostly come from religious people as God is theirs. I would have like other religions beyond Christianity to have participated, but I guess only Christians and atheists play trombones.
Now the reason for doing this was to find the common elements and boil them down to what a mathematician would call a basis set that spans the entire understanding of God (not all of God, but your limited understanding of God). That way, when some one said "such and such ... God .. blah and such" I could use that (admittedly limited but nonetheless representative) definition with which to try to understand what the person was saying.
The end result was God = {{universe}, judgement, emotion} where {universe} is the basis set of attributes for the universe, minus, of course, those specific to humans, if there are any.
I always knew the purpose Bob, and I came to a conclusion as to that purpose a few dozen posts ago.
My purpose was to come up with a useful description of God for the sake of conversation. I wanted this to mostly come from religious people as God is theirs. I would have like other religions beyond Christianity to have participated, but I guess only Christians and atheists play trombones.
Now the reason for doing this was to find the common elements and boil them down to what a mathematician would call a basis set that spans the entire understanding of God (not all of God, but your limited understanding of God). That way, when some one said "such and such ... God .. blah and such" I could use that (admittedly limited but nonetheless representative) definition with which to try to understand what the person was saying.
The end result was God = {{universe}, judgement, emotion} where {universe} is the basis set of attributes for the universe, minus, of course, those specific to humans, if there are any.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:53 AMYou mean like ...
No, I mean like what you actually posted:
QuoteYou say you can't know God, but your entire premise in this thread (like every single religious thread... obsessive much?) is that He doesn't exist.
I could go on as many times before at this point and quote the context of the attempted discussion from me and the word hurling on your part, but that's a lot of work, and my fans never get out of the patterns that define their fandom, so it's all just wasted effort.
I'll be interested in an honest discussion with you on this topic when that's possible--when you can handle it if I actually manage my side of the exchange. Until then, I give you permission to create another account (if you can do that on the OTF of course) and call it "Bob's BvB" or maybe "The BvB that Bob Needs 2B", and you can go on as you do when you're pretending to engage my posts, just with that persona. It would be more or less the same, but you wouldn't have me meddling too much in your double soliloquy--it would be a lot less work for you, and apparently a lot less threatening to your world view plausibility structure (just based upon the tone and the repeatedly demonstrated need to avoid perceiving some of the key points I actually make).
No, I mean like what you actually posted:
QuoteYou say you can't know God, but your entire premise in this thread (like every single religious thread... obsessive much?) is that He doesn't exist.
I could go on as many times before at this point and quote the context of the attempted discussion from me and the word hurling on your part, but that's a lot of work, and my fans never get out of the patterns that define their fandom, so it's all just wasted effort.
I'll be interested in an honest discussion with you on this topic when that's possible--when you can handle it if I actually manage my side of the exchange. Until then, I give you permission to create another account (if you can do that on the OTF of course) and call it "Bob's BvB" or maybe "The BvB that Bob Needs 2B", and you can go on as you do when you're pretending to engage my posts, just with that persona. It would be more or less the same, but you wouldn't have me meddling too much in your double soliloquy--it would be a lot less work for you, and apparently a lot less threatening to your world view plausibility structure (just based upon the tone and the repeatedly demonstrated need to avoid perceiving some of the key points I actually make).